SOURCE: AFI
On November 29th and 30th, 2024, the Chinese and Russian air forces conducted joint patrols over the Sea of Japan and nearby regions. However, the operations did not go as planned, and the Japanese Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) exposed some startling inefficiencies in China’s military aviation capabilities. These events have underscored serious shortcomings in China’s military technology and strategy.
On the first day, a Chinese H-6N strategic bomber flew to the Sea of Japan to rendezvous with Russian forces. Typically, escort fighter jets accompany such missions for protection. However, China’s J-16 fighters escorting the bomber turned back after crossing the Tsushima Strait—about 900 kilometers from the Chinese mainland—leaving the bomber to continue alone.
This raised questions about the J-16’s operational range. Despite boasting a theoretical range of 4,000 km, the fighters carried only four missiles—just a fraction of their 12 available weapon stations—and still failed to complete the mission. Analysts attribute this to the high fuel consumption of the Chinese-built WS-10 engines, which fall short of the performance of their Russian AL-31F predecessors.
The next day, Russian Tu-95 bombers joined the operation, flying through the Tsushima Strait and heading toward the Pacific Ocean via the Miyako Strait. JSDF observations revealed Chinese YU-20 aerial tankers refueling J-16 fighters just 800 km from China—a puzzlingly short distance for refueling.
This premature refueling suggests severe limitations in the J-16’s range when equipped with the WS-10 engines. Even more telling, two additional J-16 fighters sent to escort the H-6N bomber back to base failed to reach the Miyako Strait, underscoring persistent fuel and range constraints.
The J-16’s range claims were clearly exaggerated. While its advertised 4,000 km range assumes subsonic cruising without combat maneuvers, real-world conditions drastically reduce its combat radius—possibly to less than 1,000 km. For comparison, the U.S. F-15EX, fully loaded with weapons, boasts a combat radius of 2,200 km and features engines with a lifespan of up to 4,000 hours, far outpacing the J-16’s 1,000-1,500 hours.
China’s engine technology continues to be a major bottleneck. For instance, the WS-10 engine’s high fuel consumption limits range, while reliability issues plague high-performance models like the WS-15 used in the J-20 stealth fighter. In one test flight, the WS-15 suffered high-temperature failures at speeds near Mach 2.5. These engine limitations undermine China’s claims of long-range capabilities for other aircraft, such as the J-20 and J-35.
China’s refueling tactics during the joint patrols also drew criticism. The YU-20 tankers operated dangerously close to the Miyako Strait, within range of Japan’s Type-12 surface-to-air missiles and Aegis destroyers. Such positioning exposes tankers to interception by U.S. and Japanese aircraft, a risky decision that contradicts standard air combat doctrine, where tankers operate safely behind friendly lines.
The patrols also highlighted the lack of genuine military trust between China and Russia. Russia contributed only outdated Tu-95 bombers to the exercise and refrained from providing fighter escorts. Moreover, Chinese bombers took circuitous routes to avoid entering Russian airspace, reflecting mutual wariness despite public claims of strategic alignment.
Underlying these technical and tactical failures is widespread corruption within China’s military-industrial complex. Recent anti-corruption campaigns have removed numerous high-ranking officials, exposing mismanagement and inefficiencies in defense projects. For example, one engine development program reportedly consumed over 15 billion yuan, yet only a fraction of that funding went toward actual research and development.
The joint patrols between China and Russia served more as political theater than a demonstration of military strength. China’s H-6N bomber flew without any payload, undermining its claim as a “strategic deterrent,” while operational flaws exposed glaring weaknesses in Chinese aviation technology. For Russia, the exercise was a symbolic gesture rather than a commitment to robust cooperation.
The events of November 29th and 30th highlight the challenges facing China’s ambitions to project power beyond its borders. As Beijing grapples with technological limitations and systemic corruption, its ability to match the capabilities of established military powers remains questionable.